Language

English

Who speaks English?

EVERYONE knows the stereotypes about foreigners speaking English: Scandinavians are shockingly fluent, while the Japanese lag despite years and billions of yen spent trying. Now a big new study confirms some of those stereotypes. But it holds some surprises as well.

EF Education First, an English-teaching company, compiled the biggest ever internationally comparable sample of English learners: some 2m people took identical tests online in 44 countries. The top five performers were Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The bottom five were Panama, Colombia, Thailand, Turkey and Kazakhstan. Among regions, Latin America fared worst. (No African country had enough takers to make the lists's threshold for the minimum number of participants.)

This was not a statistically controlled study: the subjects took a free test online and of their own accord. They were by definition connected to the internet and interested in testing their English; they will also be younger and more urban than the population at large. But Philip Hult, the boss of EF, says that his sample shows results similar to a more scientifically controlled but smaller study by the British Council.

Several factors correlate with English ability. Wealthy countries do better overall. But smaller wealthy countries do better still: the larger the number of speakers of a country's main language, the worse that country tends to be at English. This is one reason Scandinavians do so well: what use is Swedish outside Sweden? It may also explain why Spain was the worst performer in western Europe, and why Latin America was the worst-performing region: Spanish's role as an international language in a big region dampens incentives to learn English.

Export dependency is another correlate with English. Countries that export more are better at English (though it's not clear which factor causes which). Malaysia, the best English-performer in Asia, is also the sixth-most export-dependent country in the world. (Singapore was too small to make the list, or it probably would have ranked similarly.) This is perhaps surprising, given a recent trend towards anti-colonial and anti-Western sentiment in Malaysia's politics. The study's authors surmise that English has become seen as a mere tool, divorced in many minds from its associations with Britain and America.

Teaching plays a role, too. Starting young, while it seems a good idea, may not pay off: children between eight and 12 learn foreign languages faster than younger ones, so each class hour on English is better spent on a 10-year-old than on a six-year-old. Between 1984 and 2000, the study's authors say, the Netherlands and Denmark began English-teaching between 10 and 12, while Spain and Italy began between eight and 11, with considerably worse results. Mr Hult reckons that poor methods, particularly the rote learning he sees in Japan, can be responsible for poor results despite strenuous efforts. (He would say that, as his company sells English-teaching, but it rings true.)

Finally, one surprising result is that China and India are next to each other (29th and 30th of 44) in the rankings, despite India's reputation as more Anglophone. Mr Hult says that the Chinese have made a broad push for English (they're "practically obsessed with it”). But efforts like this take time to marinade through entire economies, and so may have avoided notice by outsiders. India, by contrast, has long had well-known Anglophone elites, but this is a narrow slice of the population in a country considerably poorer and less educated than China. English has helped India out-compete China in services, while China has excelled in manufacturing. But if China keeps up the push for English, the subcontinental neighbour's advantage may not last.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: teaching languages in school will only benefit the most diciplined pupils, with most others gaining little from it. This is especially true if you try teaching by rote.

What really works however is a widespread exposure to it in everyday life, coupled with a positive attitude to outside influences.

Here in Sweden people get really annoyed if you dub movies, no matter which language. It looks, feels and sounds wierd, and there is really no reason to do it (apart from childrens' movies of course, but as long as they're animated you can't really tell).

In contrast, countries like Germany dub everything. When asked why, I've heard some say it is because of "respect" towards their language. I always wonder, but what about respect towards the art, or the mood of the film? People are just lazy!

Now, I get that were we as big as they are, we probably would have elected to go for dubbing as well. But I'm sure glad we didn't. Watching dubbed movies makes my skin crawl. I pray I never will have to sit through one, don't even want to imagine what that would be like...

Also, speaking a language that is quite closely related to English helps. The Chinese have it a bit tougher than we do.

Norwegian, Dutch, Danish and Swedish also happen to be the four nearest living relatives of English, a fact probably worth noting alongside the other perfectly plausible socio-economic factors Johnson mentions.

However Finland's ranking can't be explained in similar terms; Finnish isn't an Indo-European language and generally does things very differently to English and most European languages: for instance, we phrase questions by inverting verb and subject ("Have you got a pen?") and negate a sentence by inserting a particle ("I have not"). In Finnish, you insert a particle for a question and invert verb and subject for negation, which is the exact opposite. But then again the Finns do have one of the best education systems in the world...

One thing that helps bring Malaysia to the top of the Asian rankings is the fact all post-secondary education in Malaysia (of which there is a great deal) is done in English. Plus, of course, the British colonial legacy results in widespread use of English among all the cultures in Malaysia. Malays constitute only around half of the population, and while Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) is the national language and everybody studies and speaks it, almost everyone is polyglot as a matter of course. English is widely spoken and used every day there; this is not true of any other E. Asian or S.E. Asian country (except, as noted, Singapore).

"Finally, one surprising result is that China and India are next to each other"

I'm not too surprised. It's kind of a myth that Indians (or all Indians) can speak English. I was on a train to Delhi with some college-age people, and none of them could carry any kind of fluent conversation in English. A lot of people can speak only simple English on par with what you hear in other parts of Asia, although I've heard the south of India has better English.

The other problem with India is that English is often studied and used to communicate with other Indians, not with foreigners, so the result is Indian English. The Chinese generally strive to learn English from native speakers whenever possible.

Another issue that was not mentioned is cultural attitudes. Some countries are generally very accepting of things foreign--people, ideas, goods--and this carries over to their attitudes towards acquiring and using foreign languages.

I was very supried to see that two of the poorest performing countries were Hispanic. Since Spanish is a Romance language, ie western European, and shares much with English I would have thought that Hispanics would have an advantage over others and would speak Engolish relatively easily.
I have some knowldege of two European languages, besides English, and also studied Latin. I find western European languages to be fairly simple to pick up because of the huge similarities between them. Most Asian languages, however, are a problem and I'm sure the reverse is true for Asians.
However, Hispano-America is the only region of the world that I can think of where one can travel internationally in many countries and never leave the same language, so that probably contributes.
Aside from the influence of the British and, now, US empires, the reason for the widespread use of English is simply that it's grammar, not it's spelling, is so simple - not inflected, simple compounds to form tenses, no genders, other than the obvious and logical ones, not tonal, etc. It's easier to learn than most.
Also, the statistics are a bit misleading. Thailand and Turkey rank poorly and yet, in my experience, there is no difficulty in travelling and working in those countries. The percentage of the total population that speaks English may be low but it is much higher amongst the educated and professional classes.
In many multi-lingual countries, eg India, a lot of people who are not of the centrally-imposed, national language group, resent it and make a point of not using it. When they need a "national" languag they use English, whatever the government says. I have worked in India and have heard discussions between Gujarati and Bengali professinals conducted in English. Neither side used Hindi. A Tamil friend who speaks Tamil and English said to me that there is no way he will speak Hindi. He, like many others, consider it to be an impostion. In this, Nigeria was more astute in avoiding the ethnic divide, in this matter anyway, by making English, rather than a local language, the national tongue.
There are two serious problems faced by people learning English and these seem particualry bad in Asia -
1) They only practice by speaking to other "foreigners". I have met Japanese and others who have worked abroad for many years but never in a native English-speaking country. Their English is appalling, almost unintelligible.
When a foreigner speaks French, Spanish, Hindi or Japanese he or she usually speaks it with a native speaker. This is often (usually?) not true of English. Bad habits get reinforced by poor speakers' talking and listening to poor speakers. Also, they don't seem to care. If I speak a language to a native speaker I very much appreciate his, politely, correcting me. I have tried this with Asians speaking English and have got a dismissive, "Doesn't matter", something that I consider somewhat insulting to the language and those whos speak it as natives.
2) Most of the teachers of English are not natives or do not speak it to a native level of fluency. Some are very bad. I have been fortuinate in that most of my language teachers have been native speakers or people who had lived and worked in the country and spoke like natives. (Except my school Latin teacher. They didn't hire a Roman.) In Hong Kong some years ago there was a dispute with the teachers' unions claiming that native-speakers were not necessary. I've heard a Hong Kong so-called English teacher and it would certainly help. THis person would not, by any reasonable standard, be considered to be an English speaker. I realise that there probably aren't enough native speaking teachers to go around and certainly not at the salaries on offer.

While it may be true that foreign language is best began learning at 8 rather than 6, I would say that - supported by very much personal and anecdotal evidence - starting earlier provided you can keep up the intensity is better still. The method matter also, and again in my experience, the rota produces almost no results whatsoever, while an immersive and free-form method does much, much better. FWIW, the same holds true for most other sciences and skills. Hands on, force yourself into it always gives better results. Another factor that looms large in my experience is the (un)availability of dubbed foreign TV/film content. Where dubbing is the norm foregin language fluency is worse than where subtitling prevails.

PS
Full disclosure: I have started learning English at the ripe young age of 6, but did it both in and out-side of the rota state school schemes. At the ripe old age of 22 I have become a (semi)professional technical translator (with my union fees duly paid up) - mostly due to reading mostly in English long before that and ever since. Then, at the very, very old age of 35 I moved to Blighty where I started correcting my co-workers' grammar and/or style to the extent that some are now willingly asking my advice in such matters. ;)

PPS
No, I never have taken, and never will take a course in modesty. What would be the point, after all... :)

The Remains of the Naniwa
I don’t know how the study/ranking was done, but in HK even the cleaning lady speaks English. In Tokyo no one outside the expat Akasaka/Roppongi areas (including for instance my well educated doctor and dentist).
Also no comparison to Paris (nowadays - not 10 years ago), where you can easily go around without French (ie take a taxi in Paris vs a taxi in Tokyo).

The EF's study shows, for all the stereotype Johnson referred, Japan performs pretty well, 14th in the table. Only slightly lower than the former Crown Colony, HK, and higher than France. Does Johnson commend this Japanese achievement? Perhaps, "years and billions of Yen spent" is finally bearing fruits.

The Japanese do not speak English well. I have lived here for ten years.
I bet that those who took the test are among the more motivated.
Certainly, Japanese that learn English from EF want to study abroad, so they should make an effort.
Japan and Britain are island countries that are monolingual and are not inclined to change.

I am not surprised the Finns and Poles do well. They are both pragmatic and realize English is useful for them. Both countries are solid members of the EU.

@Wobytides: I think you're right about speakers of teutonic languages having an inbuilt advantage. As you point out, 4 of the top five are teutonic, and Austria, Belgium (half-Flemish), Germany and Switzerland are 6, 7, 8 and 11 respectively. This makes Finland all the more remarkable and is maybe another sign of the strength of the Finnish educational system. I think Finnish schoolchildren are obliged to learn Swedish, though, which probably helps with learning English.

If speaking a teutonic language is a real advantage, it appears that Germany performs relatively poorly in this table - it is the worst-performing teutonic country apart from Switzerland (where about one-third of the population are non-German speakers) and is ~5% points behind Finland, ~10% points behind Sweden and only 2% points ahead of 10th-ranked Poland, the highest-ranking non-teutonic European country.

Actually, in a bilingual family where both parents get along well and make learning each language a game of inter-mutual benefit, a three year old can learn both very easily, and think its just lottsa fun. And there have been examples in history of children in multi-lingual environments learning many languages at very early ages. I’ve seen it, and so have many others. School is just not much learning-fun as it is also, dare we say it, day care so the parents can work. Now, if the global education industries could just learn how to use more game-learning as the game industries do for SO much profit…. :-)

There are other things to consider as well. In my brief time in Germany, I stopped at a newspaper stand and couldn't find a single German newspaper in English (There might be, but I didn't spot one). In India, there are dozens of English newspapers available just about everywhere.

@Varq raises a lot of great points. Certainly stronger statistics on native English speaker numbers in countries worldwide would shed some light on the necessity of native speakers on improving a country's English proficiency. Even if they're not working in education, perhaps their presence alone would help. Iraq or Afghanistan's proficiency before and after the US invasion would be fascinating.